Globalism and Foreign Policy

Kerby Anderson

A small but powerful group of internationalists is bent on bringing
every aspect of our world society under one, universal political
system. The philosophy behind this movement is known as globalism.
In this article we will be looking at the subject and describing
how it has been promoted by the Bush and Clinton administrations.
First, I would like to begin by looking at the goals of globalists.
Though they are a diverse and eclectic group of international
bankers, politicians, futurists, religious leaders, and economic
planners, they are unified in their desire to unite the planet
under a one-world government, a single economic system, and a one-
world religion. Through various governmental programs,
international conferences, and religious meetings, they desire to
unite the various governments of this globe into one single
network.

Although this can be achieved in a variety of ways, the primary
focus of globalists is on the next generation of young people. By
pushing global education in the schools, they believe they can
indoctrinate students to accept the basic foundations of globalism.
According to one leader of this movement, global education seeks to
"prepare students for citizenship in the global age." They believe
that this new form of education will enable future generations to
deal effectively with population growth, environmental problems,
international tensions, and terrorism.

But something stands in the way of the designs of the globalists.
As a result, they have targeted for elimination three major
institutions whose continued existence impedes their plans to unite
the world under a single economic, political, and social global
network.

Three Institutions Under Attack

The three institutions under attack by globalists today are: the
traditional family, the Christian church, and the national
government. Each institution espouses doctrines antithetical to the
globalist vision. Therefore, they argue, these institutions must be
substantially modified or replaced.

The traditional family poses a threat to globalism for two reasons.
First, it is still the primary socializing unit in our society.
Parents pass on social, cultural, and spiritual values to their
children. Many of these values such as faith, hard work, and
independence collide with the designs of globalists. Instead, they
envision a world where the norm is (1) tolerance for religion, (2)
dependence on a one-world global community, and (3) international
cooperation. Because these values are not generally taught in
traditional American families, the globalists seek to change the
family.

Second, parental authority in a traditional family clearly
supersedes international authority. Children are taught to obey
their parents in such families. Parents have authority over their
children, not a national or international governmental entity.
Globalists, therefore, see the traditional, American family as an
enemy not a friend.

Well-known humanist and globalist Ashley Montagu speaking to a
group of educators declared that, "The American family structure
produces mentally ill children." From his perspective, the
traditional family which teaches such things as loyalty to God and
loyalty to country is not producing children mentally fit for the
global world of the twenty-first century.

One of the reasons globalist educators advocate childhood education
begin at earlier and earlier ages is so that young children can be
indoctrinated into globalism. The earlier they can communicate
global themes to children, the more likely they are at breaking the
influence of the family.

The Christian church, because of its belief in the authority of the
Bible, is another institution globalists feel threatens their
global vision. Most other religions as well as liberal Christianity
pose little threat. But Christians who believe in God, in sin, in
salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone, stand in the way of
globalist plans for a one-world government and a one-world
religion.

The coming world religion will merge all religions and faiths into
one big spiritual amalgam. Hinduism and Buddhism are syncretistic
religions and can easily be merged into this one-world religion.
But orthodox Christianity cannot.

Jesus taught that "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no
one comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6). Globalists,
therefore, see Christianity as narrow, exclusive, and intolerant.
Paul Brandwein even went so far as to say that, "Any child who
believes in God is mentally ill." Belief in a personal God to which
we owe allegiance and obedience cannot be toleratedif globalists
are to achieve their ultimate vision.

National governments also threaten globalism. If the goal is to
unite all peoples under one international banner, any nationalism
or patriotism blocks the progress of that vision. Globalist and
architect, Buckminster Fuller once said that, "Nationalism is the
blood clot in the world's circulatory system."

Among nations, the United States stands as one of the greatest
obstacles to globalism. The European community has already
acquiesced to regional and international plans, and other emerging
nations willingly join the international community.

By contrast, the United States remains independent in its national
fervor and general unwillingness to cooperate with international
standards. Until recently, Americans rejected nearly everything
international; be it an international system of measurements
(metric system) or an international agency (such as the United
Nations or the World Court).

The globalists' solution is to promote global ideas in the schools.
Dr. Pierce of Harvard University speaking to educators in Denver,
Colorado, said, "Every child in America who enters schools at the
age of five is mentally ill, because he comes to school with
allegiance toward our elected officials, toward our founding
fathers, toward our institutions, toward the preservation of this
form of government." Their answer is to purge these nationalist
beliefs from school children so they will come to embrace the goals
of globalism.

All over the country programs on Global Education, Global History,
and Global Citizenship are springing up. Children are being
indoctrinated into a global way of thinking. Frequently these
programs masquerade as drug awareness programs, civics programs,
environmental programs. But their goal is just the same: to break
down a child's allegiance to family, church, and country. And to
replace this allegiance to the globalist vision for a one-world
government, a one-world economic system, and a one-world religion.

New World Order

The term "New World Order" has been used by leading establishment
media and think tanks. These groups advocate a world government, a
merging of national entities into an international organization
that centralizes political, economic, and cultural spheres into a
global network.

Those promoting this idea of a new world order are a diverse group.
They include various political groups, like the Club of Rome, the
Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission. The
concept has also been promoted by foreign policy groups, secret
societies, and international bankers.

Historically internationalists have used the term to describe their
desire to unite the world political, economically, and culturally,
and it is hardly a recent phenomenon. After World War I, President
Woodrow Wilson pushed for the world's first international
governmental agency: the League of Nations. Yet despite his
vigorous attempt to win approval, he failed to get the United
States to join the League of Nations.

But by the end of World War II, the world seemed much more willing
to experiment with at least a limited form of world government
through the United Nations. President Harry Truman signed the
United Nations Charter in 1945, and a year later John D.
Rockefeller, Jr., gave the U.N. the money to purchase the eighteen
acres along the East River in New York City where the U.N. building
sits today.

For the last forty years, globalists have tried to use the U.N. and
other international organizations to birth this new world order.
Yet most of their actions have been to no avail. Except for its
peace-keeping action during the Korean War, most of the time the
U.N. has been nothing more than an international debate society.

Although the U.N. has not provided internationalists with much of
a forum for international change, that does not mean they have not
been making progress in their desire to unite the world. Through
political deals and treaties of economic cooperation,
internationalists have been able to achieve many of their goals.

How these goals fit within the current political context is
unclear. But we already have an emerging world order in Europe
through the European Economic Community. This European Community is
more than just a revised Common Market. Europeans are beginning to
speak of themselves as Europeans rather than as Germans or as
English. They have developed various cooperative arrangements
including a common European currency.

Even more surprising is talk of a United European Community that
stretches from the Atlantic to the Eastern end of the former Soviet
Union. In his book Perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev proposed
a United Europe stretching "from the Atlantic to the Urals." And
Pope John Paul II, during a mass held in Germany, appealed for a
United Europe "from the Atlantic to the Urals."

Other signs of a change in thinking came when former President Bush
delivered his September 1990 speech to a joint session of Congress
when he referred four times to a "new world order." Supposedly the
reason for all of this talk of a new world order is a changing
world situation. Lessening tensions in Eastern Europe and
increasing tensions in the Middle East are the supposed reason for
President Bush talking about a new world order. But, as we have
already noted, this term precedes any of the recent world events.

Notice how Newsweek magazine described the genesis of
President Bush's vision of the new world order: "As George Bush
fished, golfed and pondered the post cold-war world in Maine last
month, his aides say that he began to imagine a new world order."

It went on to say that "It is a vision that would have chilled John
Foster Dulles to the marrow: the United States and the Soviet
Union, united for crisis management around the globe." Perhaps it
would have surprised former government leaders, but it is
noteworthy that nearly all secular media and most politicians seem
ready to embrace the concept of a new world order.

When President Bush addressed the joint houses of Congress, this is
how he expressed his vision: "The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as
grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an
historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our
fifth objective--a new world order--can emerge; a new era, freer
from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and
more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of
the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in
harmony."

Recently President Clinton has proposed a variation of this idea.
He describes it as global multilateralism. When the Clinton foreign
policy team took office, they wanted to extend President Bush's
ideal of a new world order. Dedicated to the rapid expansion of
U.N.-sponsored "peace keeping operations," the Clinton team began
developing agreements to deploy American troops to hot spots around
the globe. The goal was to upgrade the professionalism of the U.N.
troops and placement of American troops under U.N. commanders using
U.N. rules of engagement.

All seemed to be going well for the Clinton policy until U.S.
troops in Somalia got cut down in an ambush, and Americans
discovered that the operation was led by a Pakistani General.
Suddenly, American fathers and mothers wanted to know why their
sons' lives were put at risk by placing U.S. troops in harm's way
and by placing them under U.N. command.

The Clinton policy of global multilateralism attempts to honor the
U.N. request for a standing rapid deployment force under the
secretary-general's command. But what it ends up doing is calling
for American servicemen to risk life and limb for ill-defined
causes in remote places under foreign leaders with constrained
rules of engagement. The loss of American sovereignty and the
undermining of strategic interests of the United States is
significant.

What's the solution? We need a foreign policy based upon American
interests, not the ideals of the globalists.

Practical Suggestions

We must challenge the goals and vision of globalists. In an effort
to unite all peoples under a one-world government, one-world
economic system, and one-world religion, globalists will attack the
traditional family, the Christian church, and the American
government. We, therefore, must be willing and able to meet the
challenge. Here are some important action steps we must take to
prevent the advance of globalism in our communities.

First, we must become informed. Fortunately a number of books have
been written which provide accurate information about the goals and
strategy of globalism.

Second, find out if globalism is already being taught in your
school system. Materials from groups like the Center for Teaching
International Relations at the University of Denver are already
being used in many school districts. Look for key words and names
that may indicate that global education is being used in your
district.

Third, express your concerns to educators and leaders in your
community. Often educators teaching globalism are unaware of the
implications of their teaching. Globalism in attempting to unite
nations and peoples will have to break down families, churches, and
governments. Educate them about the dangers of globalism and its
threat to the foundations upon which your community rests.
Encourage them to be better informed about the true goals of
globalists and the danger they pose to our society.

Fourth, Christians should be in prayer for those in government. We
are admonished in 1 Timothy 2 to pray for leaders and others in
authority. Pray that they will have discernment and not be lead
astray by the designs of globalists.

Finally, I believe Christians should question the current interest
many of our leaders have in developing a new world order. What are
our leaders' calling for us to do? Are they proposing that the
United States give up its national sovereignty? Will we soon be
following the dictates of the U.N. Charter rather than the U.S.
Constitution?

These are questions we should all be asking our leaders. What does
President Clinton intend with his policy of global multilateralism?
What role will the United States play? Aren't we merely being moved
towards the globalists' goal of a one-world government, a one-world
economy, and a one-world religion?

Moreover, what will this new world order cost the American
taxpayer? From the operations of Desert Storm to the more recent
military actions in Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti we can see a trend.
American troops do the fighting and the American people pay the
bill. If we do not re-evaluate our foreign policy, it may end up
costing the American taxpayer plenty.

If you have concerns, I would encourage you to write or call and
express your thoughts. Congress and the President need to know that
you have questions about current attempts to move us into a new
world order.